Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?

q=ben

Title
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. L-40252 Dec 29, 1986

In Chiao Ben Lim v. Zosa, the Supreme Court clarifies that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
allows for changes in the birth entry regarding citizenship through adversary
proceedings, emphasizing that it is a correction of error and not a change of status.

230 Phil. 444

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. L-40252. December 29, 1986 ]

ANTONIO CHIAO BEN LIM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIANO A. ZOSA, JUDGE OF THE
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH V AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
OF THE CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CRUZ, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari from two Orders[1] of the respondent judge dismissing a
petition for the correction of an allegedly wrong entry in the birth records of Kim Joseph
describing him as a Chinese national instead of a Filipino citizen.

The petitioner had offered to prove the error through several pieces of evidence, among
them an earlier birth certificate of Kim Joseph describing him as a Filipino citizen, the
birth certificates of his seven brothers and sisters all describing them as Filipinos, and a
decision of the Court of Appeals recognizing their grandfather as a Filipino citizen.[2]

On opposition by the local civil registrar of Cebu,[3] however, the respondent judge
dismissed the petition and sustained the contention that only clerical errors were allowed
to be corrected in the summary proceedings authorized under Article 412 of the Civil Code
and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Substantial issues like citizenship were not covered. In
effect, it was held, the petition was for a judicial declaration of citizenship, which was not
allowed under existing rules.[4]

1 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

Article 412 of the Civil Code simply provides: "No entry in the civil registry shall be changed
or corrected without a judicial order."

In fairness to the respondent judge, there was abundant jurisprudence to lend support to
his Orders at the time they were issued. Since then, however, the strict doctrine announced
in those cases has been relaxed, most recently in the case of Republic v. Valencia,[5]
supported by twelve members of this Court with only one other member not taking part.

In that case (arising, incidentally, also in Cebu City), there was a petition for the correction
in the birth entries of two persons in the local civil registry, specifically to change their
citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino," their status as children from "legitimate" to
"illegitimate," and their mother's status from "married" to "single." The motion to dismiss
filed by the local civil registrar having been denied, a full-blown trial was held and the
changes sought were thereafter ordered by the trial court. The Republic of the Philippines
then came to this Court to question the decision, invoking substantially the same grounds
on which the Orders now being challenged were based.

In a well-reasoned and exhaustive decision, Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez declared inter alia:
"It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or
citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief
cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right
in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is
used. This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may
be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. As a matter of fact, the opposition of
the Solicitor General dated February 20, 1970 while questioning the use of Article 412 of the
Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court admits that 'the entries
sought to be corrected should be threshed out in an appropriate proceeding.'

"What is meant by 'appropriate adversary proceeding?' Black's Law Dictionary defines

'adversary proceeding' as follows:

'One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one
of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded
the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.' (Platt v. Magagnini,
187, p. 716, 718, 110 Was. 39).[6]

2 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

...

"The court's role in hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to
ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. Under our system of administering
justice, truth is best ascertained or approximated by trial conducted under the adversary
system.[7]

...

"Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been
fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to
demolish the opposite party's case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed
and considered, the suit or proceeding is 'appropriate.'
"The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide:

'SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought,
the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

'SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order,
fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be
published once in a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

'SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest
under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his
opposition thereto.'
"Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation
or correction of an entry in the civil registrar are - (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons
who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the
petition, it becomes the duty of the court to (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for
the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week
for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The
following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition: (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any
persons having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction

3 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

is sought.

"If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or
cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as 'summary.' There can be no doubt
that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person
having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and
the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary
proceedings.

...

"We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the respondent in the lower court by way of
a special proceeding for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register with
the requisite notice and publication and the recorded proceedings that actually took place
thereafter could very well be regarded as that proper suit or appropriate action."[8]In a
number of earlier cases, the Court has ruled that the birth entry regarding a person's
citizenship could not be changed under Rule 108 as this would involve substantive rights
that the rules of court could not "diminish, increase or modify" under the Constitution.[9]

Thus, in Chua Wee v. Republic,[10] a unanimous Court declared that, "if Rule 108 were to be
extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible
to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and
controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would
be increasing or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized under
Article 412 of the new Civil Code."

In Wong v. Republic,[11] however, Justice Vicente Abad Santos, in a separate concurrence,

expressed the view that Article 412, which Rule 108 was supposed to implement, "does not
say that it applies only to non-controversial issues and that the procedure to be used is
summary in nature," adding that "Article 412 contemplates all kinds of issues and all kinds
of procedures." Justice Pacifico de Castro, in a dissenting opinion, agreed with him and said
(speaking also of Article 412) that "no prohibition may be seen from its express provision,
nor by mere implication, against correction of a substantial error as one affecting the status
of a person." Amplifying on this view, he declared in another dissenting opinion in
Republic v. de la Cruz:[12]
"It is not accurate to say that Rule 108 would be rendered unconstitutional if it would allow

4 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

the correction of more than mere harmless clerical error, as it would thereby increase or
modify substantive rights which the Constitution expressly forbids because Article 412 of
the Civil Code, the substantive law sought to be implemented by Rule 108, allows only the
correction of innocuous clerical errors not those affecting the status of persons. As was
stressed in the dissent on the aforesaid Wong Case, Article 412 does not limit in its express
terms nor by mere implication, the correction authorized by it to that of mere clerical
errors. Upon a consideration of this fact, it would be reasonable and justified to rule that
Article 412 contemplates of correction of erroneous entry of whatever nature, procedural
safeguards having only to be provided for, as was the manifest purpose of Rule 108.

"It is worth emphasing that proceedings for the correction of erroneous entry should not
be considered as establishing one's status in a legal manner conclusively beyond dispute or
controversion, for as provided by Article 410 of the Civil Code, 'the books making up the
civil register and all documents relating thereto x x x shall be prima facie evidence of the
facts therein contained. Hence, the status as corrected would not have a superior quality
for evidentiary purpose. Moreover, the correction should not imply a change of status but a
mere rectification of error to make the matter corrected speak for the truth. There is,
therefore, no increase or diminution of substantive right, as is the basis for holding that
Rule 108 would be unconstitutional if held to allow correction of more than mere harmless
and innocuous clerical errors."The Valencia ruling has in effect adopted the above-stated
views insofar as it now allows changes in the birth entry regarding a person's citizenship
as long as adversary proceedings are held. Where such a change is ordered, the Court will
not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or rectifying an erroneous entry
in the civil registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides
only the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive law
embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does not violate the Constitution.

We note that in the case at bar the petition was dismissed outright without a trial being
held, on the justification that it was not permitted. In the light of the Valencia ruling, the
Orders of the respondent judge must now be reversed, to give way to the appropriate
proceedings necessary to the resolution of the substantial issue raised by the petitioner.
The records show that the publication requirement has already been complied with.[13] The
next step, therefore, is for the petitioner and all adverse and interested parties to be given
their day in court in a regular trial on the merits.

WHEREFORE, the challenged Orders are hereby set aside, and Special Proceeding No.
3596-R of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch V, is reinstated for trial on the merits
without delay. No pronouncement as to costs.

5 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Paras, and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

[1]
Dated January 10, 1975 and January 28, 1975. The second Order was a denial of the
Motion for Reconsideration.

[2]
Rollo, pp. 9, 17; Annexes "L" to "R", Petition.

[3]
Annex "D", Petition.

[4] Order of January 10, 1975.

[5] 141 SCRA 462.

[6]
141 SCRA 468.

[7]
Ibid., p. 471

[8] Id., pp. 473-474.

[9]
Ty Kong Tin v. Republic, 94 Phil. 321; Ansaldo v. Republic, 102 Phil. 1046; Black v.
Republic, 104 Phil. 848; Tan Su v. Republic, 105 Phil. 578; Bantoto Coo v. Republic, 2 SCRA
42; Balete v. Republic, 3 SCRA 582; Lui Lin v. Nuno, 9 SCRA 707; Beduya v. Republic, 11
SCRA 109; Reyes v. Republic, 12 SCRA 376; Baybayan v. Republic, 16 SCRA 403; Dy En Siu
Co. v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 24 SCRA 309; Chua Tan Chuan v. Republic, 27 SCRA
447; Chua Chin v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 29 SCRA 448; Tan Pong v. Republic, 30
SCRA 380; Celestial v. Republic, 102 SCRA 666 citing Salim Wing v. Abubakar, L-25168,
January 31, 1981; Republic v. Caparosso, 107 SCRA 67; Wong v. Republic, 115 SCRA 496.

[10] 38 SCRA 409.

6 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM
Chiao Ben Lim vs. Zosa https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/chiao-ben-lim-v-zosa?q=ben

[11]
135 SCRA 496.

[12]
118 SCRA 33-34.

[13]
Annex "B", Petition.

7 of 7 11/22/24, 12:02 PM